| Message ID | 20190515061807.6257-1-pvorel@suse.cz (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2] ima: fix wrong signed policy requirement when not appraising | expand |
diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c index e0cc323f948f..0f6fe53cef09 100644 --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c @@ -498,10 +498,11 @@ static void add_rules(struct ima_rule_entry *entries, int count, list_add_tail(&entry->list, &ima_policy_rules); } - if (entries[i].action == APPRAISE) + if (entries[i].action == APPRAISE) { temp_ima_appraise |= ima_appraise_flag(entries[i].func); - if (entries[i].func == POLICY_CHECK) - temp_ima_appraise |= IMA_APPRAISE_POLICY; + if (entries[i].func == POLICY_CHECK) + temp_ima_appraise |= IMA_APPRAISE_POLICY; + } } }
Kernel booted just with ima_policy=tcb (not with ima_policy=appraise_tcb) shouldn't require signed policy. Regression found with LTP test ima_policy.sh. Fixes: c52657d93b05 ("ima: refactor ima_init_policy()") Suggested-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> --- Changelog v1->v2: * Use POLICY_CHECK instead of ima_use_appraise_tcb. Thanks Mimi for obvious hint :). Kind regards, Petr security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)